The Calcutta High Court ruled that caste-based abuse made over a phone call does not attract the SC/ST Act. The decision came while hearing Nurul Aras’ anticipatory bail plea under Section 482, seeking protection from FIR charges.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse made during a telephone call, rather than in public view, do not significantly invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This decision was reached while addressing an anticipatory bail plea submitted by Nurul Aras before a single judge bench led by Justice Jay Sengupta.
The petitioner approached the high court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest protection related to an FIR that included Sections 31(r) and 31(s) of the SC/ST Act along with additional criminal charges.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the prohibition against granting anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act did not apply in this case because the essential elements of the crime were unmet.
The argument was based on the FIR indicating that the alleged abusive comments occurred via telephone. Since the law requires that such caste-based insults or intimidations occur in public view, the petitioner maintained that no prima facie offense under this specific law was established.
Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that besides the SC/ST Act charges, the other offenses listed in the FIR were bailable. On this ground, the argument was made that the ongoing fear of arrest was unjustified and that the petitioner deserved protection from coercive measures.
Conversely, the State contested the anticipatory bail request, describing the allegations as serious and referring to the case diary and witness statements from the investigation.
The prosecution urged the court to deny anticipatory bail, suggesting that custodial interrogation might be essential.
After reviewing the arguments from both parties, the court analyzed the nature of the allegations presented in the FIR.
Justice Sengupta pointed out that the alleged abusive remarks were made over the phone and not in public view. Given this factual context, the court concluded that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie applicable.
The court referred to the case as a peculiar case, acknowledging that the other allegations against the petitioner were bailable.
Balancing the various considerations, the court chose not to grant anticipatory bail but offered limited protection to the petitioner.
The High Court concluded by allowing the petitioner to surrender before the relevant court and apply for regular bail within four weeks. It instructed that if a bail application is submitted, the jurisdictional court must consider it according to the law.
Crucially, the court also ensured that the petitioner would not be arrested during this four-week timeframe, thereby providing interim protection from arrest to facilitate the approach to the trial court for necessary relief.
Case Title: Nurul Aras vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act